Skip to main content

tv   Special Joint Planning Recreation and Park Commission 101515  SFGTV  October 25, 2015 3:10am-4:36am PDT

3:10 am
scenario of 363 6th and also shows 345 6th street. i'm here with planning staff and we're available for any questions that you may have? also the project sponsor is here as well with a presentation. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners, alexis pelosi. the project sponsor and the president who is here today, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the project at 363 6th street. we have been work on this project with planning department staff and community and reflects the invaluable insight by both group and project that will bring much needed housing. real tek was formed with the focus to build housing that is affordable by design and
3:11 am
housing that responds to and reflects the community and the neighborhoods where it is located. real tek has engaged if its neighbors and local businesses, non-profit and citywide entitis to design and integrate projects that weave into the local san francisco. cody, a real tek team member will be provide a summary of the project at 363, 6th street and i will provide an overview of the shadow and cody will conclude the sponsor's presentation with a brief summary of real tek's community out reach and community benefits. before turning it over to cody, we want to thank the planning department staff, and in particular rick sucre and david for their professionalism and guidance and we want to thank community members for working with real teks on the 363 6th street project and their comments and staff's work has resulted in a better project and one that we're honored to receive a favorable recommendation for approval from staff. here is cody, who will walk you
3:12 am
through the details of the project. >> good afternoon, commission members. executive vice president of real tek. i would like to express my gratitude for the planning department's positive recommendation of the project and the hard work that they have put into this project to make it a better place to live, work, and play. as described by mr. sucre, 363 6th street is located at corner of 6th and clara street. thank you. our proposed project is an 85' tall mixed-use residential build. we envision our project transforepersoning this important, but underutilized gateway to downtown. given our proposed project provides a total of 104 luxury residential units, comprises of 28 studios, 21 bedroom and 56
3:13 am
two-bedroom units including 12 on-site inclusionary affordable units, 54% of our units are two-bedrooms far exceeding the 40% requirement. we have worked extensive with the planning department staff to activate the street, after meet communitying multiple one-on-one meetings with community leaders we have incorporated many of the changes into the project, and it's helped us improve the pedestrian experience. the ground floor fronting 6th street include a lobby, community room, 700 square foot commercial space, with frontages on both 6th street and clary clara street. it will be available for community members for meetings and events and were working to donate to local non-profits. working with david winslow we designed the clara street frontage to integrate the residential feel of clara street. the building is setback 10'
3:14 am
above the 4th floor with three residential units fronting clara street on the ground-level. these units have raised entries and are setback 14' from curb creating separation from the street and privacy for the residents. our project provides approximately 8,000 square feet of combined open space, comprised on-grade rear yard and rooftop deck. now i would like to ask alexis pelosi to return and discuss the building's shadow and the relationship to the two parks located near the project. >> hi. i'm going to talk about shadow and i know stacey did a great job with overview of it. victoria manalo draves park and gene friend park. amd noble is here prepared a shadow study and based on the analysis it was determined it would not have a shadow impact on vped victoria manalo
3:15 am
draves, but would catch a small shadow on gene friend recreation center. as indicated by stacey, gene friend is open tuesday through friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on saturdays and closed on mondays and sundays. at its maximum, the project's new shadow covers 13% of the park and averages for approximately 12 minute and located in passive recreation areas. in total, the net new shadow cast by the project is 0.02% increase in the existing shadow load on the park. to help visualize, the project sponsor has prepared a video of the worst shadow day, the day with the greatest new shadow and largest new shadow by area. the video is not required, nor proposition k or ceqa, but prepared and is being provided to help visualize the duration and location of the net new
3:16 am
shadow. gene friend is outlined in yellow. and 363 6th street is in blue. as you can see the shadow has already left the park. the shadow occurs first thing in the morning, as you can see. and quickly moves off of the park. so off the park by 7:55 a.m. this is a still of the worst shadow day, which stacey also showed. on this day, again, this shadow covers 13% at maximum. and is gone by 7:55 a.m., which is over an hour before the park opens. to get a essence sense sense of where the shadow is cast, you can see the shadow cast on passive recreation areas such as walkways on the southeast corner of the park.
3:17 am
the shadow cast before gene friend center is open, the latest shadow that occurs on the park at 8:41, 19 minutes before the park opens and covers at maximum 13% of the park. for all of these reasons and because of the limited size and duration of the shadow in relation to gene friend recreation center and existing shadow load, we agree with staff's determination it's nod adverse and does not interfere with use of park and to increase acl for gene friend center by 0.08%. here is cody to talk more about the project's community benefit and community outreach. >> real tek is contributing a combined 1.8 million dollars to the community in the form of impact fees, including $185,000
3:18 am
in contributions to local parks and youth programs. project provides 12 new below market-rate affordable units, 54% of the units will be two-bedroom and we're committed to hiring local, skilled trades people for the building's construction. since the inception of the project real tek has met with over 25 community organizations and providing letters of support from local neighbors. we developed a strong supportive relationship with seven major community organizations including walk sf, san francisco bicycle coalition, united players, city crossroadssom art, national federation of filipino-americans -- meeting with community leaders one-on-one has helped us understand the community's needs and shaped our project's
3:19 am
design. recognizing the importance of local parks we have formed a partnership with the san francisco parks alliance to found youth sports program at gene friend rec center and sponsor a monthly movie night at victoria manalo draves park. we supported with the san francisco bicycle coalition's bike and roll to school day, walking sf pilot program, part of their safe routes to school andsom arts and sponsor a south of market youth collaborative, which provides summer programs for 175 at-risk children. we have engaged the filipino community with health symposium and proud sponsor of the victoria manalo draves vmd plaque that had an unveiling ceremony and support the asian-pacific islanders
3:20 am
fundraising efforts. many closing i would like to thank the staff of the the planning department for positive recommendation on our project. thank you. >> we will open up to public comment. read something cards here. rudy, carlos. rudy asuncion. natasha r.. [ reading speakers' names ] >> i'm with the national federation of filipino-americans and i'm here
3:21 am
to support realtek's project. realtek has proven themselves to be supportive of the community. and they have proven to be a valid community partner for the south of market area. but one of the things that i would really like about realtek is that they supported our project -- to us that is very important because filipinos have the highest rick in risk in the united states. i support their project strongly and ask that you also do the same. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is rudy also. i personally like shadows --
3:22 am
it's been hot lately. i am here to support realtek, they have willing to support our organizations and 175 kids for the next five years to help fund all of our fieldtrips for all kids, 175 kids. we we have been having genuine relationships and conversations with them. there were three requests that we made. we requested three and they did two out of the three, which is good. we're here to support the project. i also know there are a lot of people here who have construction work that they need done and hopefully they can help the brothers out, too. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. any name is natasha -- i'm
3:23 am
here to actually support this project under realtek because i believe it will not only be beneficial for the community and they are going to provide i believe 300 jobs that are going to be -- they are going to be using local laborers and unions that will help the local economy and also help the middle-class and also low-income families. because we do really need it here in san francisco. also we are happy that they are supporting the filipino community. they have mentioned that they did support our health symposium that was done at the
3:24 am
filipino consulate and victoria manalo draves -- that is close to me because it's also empowering filipino-americans and also empowering women. so i do truly support this project. thank you and have a good day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. come on up and i will call a couple more names. [speaker not [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon commissioners, former member and president of the san francisco community college and port and public utilities commission. i'm here not to repeat what has already been said except to also express my support that those who support the filipino community in the south of market, which badly needs
3:25 am
support, like realtek will get the support of the filipino community. so we endorse this project whole-heartedly. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for your time in allowing me to speak in favor of this project located at 363 6th street. i'm carlos duran and field representative for the carpenters union of which approximately 3,000 belong to local 22 here in san francisco. some of those members are here behind me today. carpenters local 22 fully supports this project for the following reasons, the vermont realtek has made a commitment to hire union general contractor to build this project. this will create good jobs that provide living wages, health, and pension benefits. this project also creates real opportunity for local san francisco residents to enter
3:26 am
the carpenters apprentice project. furthermore this project completes 104 family units that addresses the crisis in affordable housing and middle-class housing in our great city. in conclusion i urge the commission to raise the cumulative shadow limit to push this project forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is heather phillips executive director at city crossroads located on 6th street across the street from howard on this project and also a community resident and friends of victoria manalo draves and gene friend rec center group. realtek has been engaged in the conversation for almost a year with the community asking in anticipation of the shadow how they could be of benefit to the community looking at the
3:27 am
long-term? as rudy said they have supported youth collaborative, which city crossroads is a part by supporting fieldtrips for 175 kids for the next five summers. they have contributed funding to the friends of the park group through the parks alliance in order to fund youth sports at gene friend. and so i really feel like they have reached out and tried to create partnership in the community and not just trying to bump up the shadow limit, but to really look at mitigating those impacts with real things that address the needs that shadows on our park create. so i would urge you just to look at the way that this project affects and the way that this developer has looked to benefit the community. thank you. >> hello, my friends. my name is michelle alevis, resident of south of market and service provider and parent.
3:28 am
i'm speaking today in support of the 363 project. development is a huge issue in our community, but i wish more folks would come to the table like these folks have and try to engage the community and find out what they can do to be a benefit? one of the things that i really appreciate is the interest and willingness to commit long-term to a five-year investment instead of just an investment upfront. when the project is being created, and that will provide services for young people for a few years to come and not just once the building is built. so we are confident that they will continue to be a member of the community, and find ways to contribute past the construction of this project. and so i just wanted to share my strong support. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners, thank you for being here. my name is kelly gross and i'm a member of both walk stanley morgan and the san francisco bicycle coalition.
3:29 am
and they supported to letters of support i wanted to read into the public record. first from the bicycle coalition. thank you for your engagement in the community, the zero vision catalog and san francisco bicycle coalition as part of your outreach around the 363 6th street product. the project is located on a high injury corridor and on routes [tphrao-ebgt/]ed by people walking and biking. we appreciate your focus on ensuring that current and future residents have safe and attractive places to walk and bike. many of the current members of the community have been asking for safety in connective improvements for years. in particular we were excited to join you and your outreach team for community safety walk around the project. being able to walk the streets surrounding the proposed site location with members of vision zero coalition, help our coalition members discuss the importance of safety treatments with realtek team and share the vision that they have for a safer 6th street. this project is on a high injury corridor and located in communities of concern. so
3:30 am
it's particularly critical you that addresses community safety concerns. we also very much appreciate your support and engagement with the carmichael school for bike and roll to school. this week was our most popular ever. finally, we are pleased to see that both projects provide significant bicycle parking space for residences and makes it possible for residents to have safe and healthy transportation options. we appreciate the chance to work with you and look forward to continuing work together to improve safety and provide safe, convenient and affordable transportation areas. sincerely policy director of the san francisco bicycle coalition. the next letter from walk san francisco. thank you for realtek's sponsorful of the betsy
3:31 am
carmichael program. realtek's donation will support goals of safe routes to school to encourage children to walk to and from school and create safer environments in the neighborhood. walk san francisco is part of a growing movement to promote safe, sustainable and healthy transportation. thank you very much. >> hi, my name is fred. i own the insurance company and ensure about 250 small businesss in the geographical area we're looking at developing. i want to applaud realtek for reaching out to the community.
3:32 am
what i'm saying here, i want you to look at every one of these faces. brothers and sisters, and i know what it's like, because i came here undocumented to this country. what jobs mean? the economy hasn't been that great. as thriving today, and these people finally have jobs. they just want to take care of their families. they just want basic rights. we know this organization has reached out to the community, doinging the right things. but you know what is more important to me? and some of you people on this board that have been in unions can understand, it's just taking care of the basic needs of the family. i'm glad that you guys are here and standing up, because we need jobs for you. i think the economy is going to drive thrive and families
3:33 am
will five. businesses that are not been doing well are starting to thrive and now their businesses are becoming sustainable. you understand what it needs to make this happen? i hope you will approve this project i think they are doing the right thing. i if any know they are doing the right thing. i don't know the people very well, but what i care about is those people right there. have a nice day. thank you. >> thank you >> good afternoon commissioners and thanks for your time for allowing me to speak. dante johnson, born and raised
3:34 am
in the mission district and a few years in the western addition. i went to galileo and city college of san francisco and decided i wanted to sell real estate, but that turn a turn for the worse. so i had no idea what i was going to do in an expensive city, you know, how the rent is here? so i joined the local 22 and became a carpenter and found it to be satisfying, creating something from nothing. there is a blank space there and you drop by and there is a building there. so i grew up inner-city kid with nothing, as a metaphor and now i have a career. so i also created something from nothing within myself. so i would just like to push this project to give more people like me to have the opportunity to create something from nothing. thank you.
3:35 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. recreation and park commission, my name is joel copple and i work for the san francisco electrical and electrician's union and also speaking for other unions. i'm a san francisco resident from here, grew up hire. live right next to golden gate park and appreciate what the rec and parks commission does. i have a letter addressed to planning president fong that i would like to submit it now while everyone is here so we're all looking at the same piece of paper. it's great to see there is a large presence here of carpenters and it's great there is a commitment from the developer to work with the
3:36 am
carpenters. i reached out to be here speaking in favor of the project. i want to be discreet about this. i know it's a very small town and i'm not here to burn any bridges or disrupt anything in the future. but as far as our local 32 contractors, sorry, we have 32, local contractors. and all of our 974 electricians that live in san francisco we're not -- we don't have a commitment from the developer on this project. so we look at this as developer versus community. developer benefits versus community benefits. and should we make deals with part of the community or all of the community? we would like to have a commitment from the developer just like the carpenters.
3:37 am
last week we were here for 532 harrison and we have commitments from the developers and all of the other trades were here in support of the project. again, not that the whole commission is going to revolve around us, but for my members and my contractors, we're unfortunately opposing this project. >> henry -- -- any other public comment addition no in addition to henry? >> henry -- market business association. south of market has been
3:38 am
[speaker not understood] there was a lot of work that was lost. also small business was lost. now we're faced with what we're going to more people coming in and more people living in the area and more small businesses that will be successful and thrive. we heavily endorse and support this project and hope that you will do so likewise. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm alice rogers from 10 south park. i'm here to address item is d, not dealing with the shadow issue, but the ground-floor project. i'm not opposed to this project being built. i think it will be an asset to the community. i'm thankful for the outreach that they have done, but ground-floor design of this
3:39 am
project clearly is in violation and disregards your very own ground floor residential guidelines, which we were told have the force of law, even though they happen not to be clearly spelled out at this moment in the planning code. i would respectfully request that you continue the item and ask for a ground-floor redesign. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm reading a letter on behalf of jess young, who is from the soma arts executive director. she is sorry she couldn't make it today, but wanted to submit the record to be on the record for the commissioners. we want to thank realtek for engagement with community and with community-organizations as
3:40 am
som art and bicycle coalition. we have been consistently impressed with how engaged and interested realtek has been in becoming part of the social fabric of the neighborhood. their willingness to participate in soma arts programming and learn about the significant cultural history. with constituents in need of affordable housing, we're pleased it their 12% affordable housing and within walking distance ofsoma arts. we look forward to welcoming future residents to join soma arts in engaging the power of the arts for just .
3:41 am
inclusion. >> any further public comment? commissioner antonini. >> on our agenda is the consideration of the shadow and whether to raise cumulative limit? and as has been presented, the impact of this is very small .027% of the available amount of shadow over the entire year and it only affects 20 out of 365 days, with the duration of 5-22 minutings. and in all cases apparently the shadow is done well before the opening of the park and most of the shadow falls on the area that is the entryway to the park. there has been some talk although not finalized yet about a redesign of the
3:42 am
structures which might end up putting structures on the area where the shadow is falling. but i think given the benefits that the project brings, and the fact that the impact is negligible and unless the hours are changed, has no effect on anybody inhabiting the park. i would be in favor of raising the cumulative limit to an amount that would allow this small increment to be allowed in this project. >> commissioner wu. >> thank you. so my first question is to staff. rec and parks staff outlined a number of projects that are going to be coming forward. i don't know, can you give us a framework how to think about the fact there will be three or four projects in a row, coming and asking for an increase in
3:43 am
what was originally a zero percent allowance. >> the other projects in the pipeline, 345 th street and 904 folsom, the environmental review is still active and the department hasn't finish third commentary on the proposed design. while we provided initially framework for the massing relative to the cumulative study, so the commissioners are aware of the potential impact only the shadow, there is not -- there is not enough information available to basically provide additional information to the commission to consider. >> thank you. >> if i could just follow-up on that. rich, correct me if i'm wrong, the analysis that was shown by rec and parks staff was, i think it's fair to say is kind of the worst-case scenario. >> correct. >> as the projects move forward we work with the sponsors so it's further
3:44 am
refined and wanted to give you a worst-case scenario. >> in the case, i think they used massing proposed by the sponsor, which isn't necessarily the massing supported by the department or future commission. >> thank you. to that point, if i could ask the developer or the architect, what would it take to design out the shadow? >> alexis pelosi again. that is something that the project sponsor hasn't spent a lot of time looking at that point. our understanding is given the sun access plane of the sun when it hits the building, hits the building pretty square on and adam noble is here and can talk about it as well. it captures a large mass of the building. so preliminary looks at it indicate that it would take off probably 2-3 stories
3:45 am
of the building which would result in a decrease of how many units? a significant portion of those units. because it's not only cutting off the top of the building, but also the core. so it would impact probably two to three floors. >> is it across the entire two floors or a corner of the building? >> it's not a corner of the building. let me see if i can find an image. so the way that the building fronts along 6th street, the massing along 6th street over in that big corner. the way the building is designed with the said the bac with the rear yard, the core goes up to the roof and provides access to all floors. when you cut it off to take off the top floors you are also cutting off the core of the building and thereafter cannot have the units at that level. as a result, you know, if there were to be no shadow impact on the park, it would be a completely redesigned project and look completely different with a different layout and
3:46 am
it's not as simple as cutting out a corner of the build. >> thank you. i say this every time, the '89 memo talks about the parks on cumulative list, also than 2 acres and -- i take that seriously. so it's hard when you don't have any options in front of you that are about shadowed versus non-shadow park. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you for the presentation. i think this is similar to the project we had when we met a while ago with 5m and this shadow is fairly minimal in areas of the park that are somewhat ancillary in during hours that the park is not open, which i think is significant and something that we should take into consideration. as always a balance between allowing for new development and in balancing that with impacts. but i think the impacts are
3:47 am
significantly low enough here, that the project outweighs -- a couple of questions? first for planning staff. when we did transbay, we kind of looked at the shadow impact of that project on parks. did we do that when we did the east soma, eastern neighborhoods plan? and kind of increased the shadow limits in envelopes? was that something kind of new to transbay? >> i think the short answer, commissioner is that it was relatively new to transbay. because we knew what -- when you did transbay, you were looking at the specific projects and heights that we knew about. the difference is that in eastern neighborhoods we didn't know, because it was first of all a much bigger area and second of all, much more speculate i ive and so it's less impact, if you will tran transbay.
3:48 am
that is a useful exercise. we didn't increase the shadow envelopes for that. so we're kind of talking out of both sides. i appreciate that we did it for transbay and not for this. second for rec and park, why is gene friend limited hours and victoria manalo draves is open dusk to dawn? just interested in that. >> i think actually the hours -- i'm not 100% of this, as i sit here and respond, i think the hours are quite similar. they are both gated. they were both designed with gated properties. so they are closed. they essentially both function from dusk to dawn. gene friend is more an active recreation site and like to have people in the building to program the space. which is a little different from the utility at vmd, where
3:49 am
we welcome people to use the park and it may not actually be programmed or might not have people on-site. >> thank you. and then just finally, i think the mitigations proposed sounded like there was a lot of work with the community. in future, i think we did this on 5m, too. it would be great to formalize those. seems like they were done on the developer's initiative with community members, but it would be good in the future. i support them to make those more part of the approval process and have some kind of more formal mitigation for shadow impact. but i think what has been proposed is appropriate and i'm glad that they were brought here and talked about in a public forum. thank you. >> commissioner richards. >> the basis for determining whether the shadow is adverse or not, as we had with 5m is really hanging its hat on the hours of operation of the park.
3:50 am
here we have a district that has a real probably the lowest of all in the supervisorial districts and maybe mr. ginsburg could help me, we're not increasing the number of parks in district 6. so the question i have at some point in the future would we increase the hours of operation that would include the time that the shadow is hitting the park? do we have any rec centers anywhere in the city that open up before work or before school, say 7:00 or 8:00 and do you have plans to actually look at this ?>>i will answer both parts of your question. we're looking at seriously at acquiring open space in district 6 and working with the open space task force and the planning department have identified a couple of possibilities. we're well-aware of the factor that the charting character of the neighborhood has changed and open space is acutely
3:51 am
important. i want to underscore the difference between a recreational center and park and gene friend is fundamentally a recreational center and space that is actively programmed. in an ideal world we would operate all facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. in looking at gene friend, our goal is in recognition of the points that you have raised to expand programing at gene friend and actually increase space at gene friend. i think that the hours of operation are certainly on the table. >> okay. i think overall here we're looking at two public policy objectives. one is quality of public space and shadowing and affordable housing. i also do support commission hillis' ask that we formally mitigate impacts. >> commissioner low. >> i do have a question for
3:52 am
stacey, what is the future plans for redevelopment of the gene friend rec center? do any of those plans include active play areas? integration of the sunlight with the rec center in the plans >> the plans are still in formation. we have four different options and i have images with me if you want to see them. the end goal will likely be something where the recreation center will be along 6th street because it's the most active part of the park. that is where we want to bring people into the park. it is going to have a play area, but the play area will likely be in a similar location to where it is today. somewhere on the harriet street side where it's more protected from the main street. that corner where this new shadow will be placed is likely
3:53 am
to be part of the park -- i'm sorry, part of the recreation center. it may have a garden on top. so there may be rooftop access with either exercise equipment or green space. >> commissioner, let me kind of underscore the feasibility study we did was frankly, was largely a philanthropic gift and so we are very early in our planning and design stage. the different models based on do we renovate the existing site? do we knock the whole thing down and start over? or do we do something inbetween? that was the feasibility study that gave us some economic ranges. where we don't have actually -- we don't -- we're still work on a funding strategy for those. so i think there is plenty of opportunity remaining in a design process. we don't have an approved concept design. we haven't completed community planning. this is just showing a range of options for what a project at gene friend could reveal? so we actually have flexibility to
3:54 am
design to maximize sunlight. >> just a follow-up question to that. what is the developer's community benefit package as it relates to parks? >> what is the community -- the develop r's community benefit package as it relates to parks? stacey. >> they provided $1000 to the gene friend rec center for youth programming. that is what they were discussing with the 175 children over five years for programming. then they are also sponsoring a movie night at vmd. they provided a plaque. they worked with the filipino community to formalize a plaque on vmd, i think -- it was a temporary sign that is now a bronze sign that explains who victoria manalo draves is.
3:55 am
>> okay. commissioner antonini. >> i would assume staff will work with any of the future projects that might cast a shadow on gene friend park as they have in this case to, minimize or eliminate that or make it a non-significant as possible? so that is something for the future. it doesn't have to do with our approvals today, but i'm certain that will continue to happen. also, i can attest to the fact that recreational areas on west side of the city have hours too and gates are closed and opened for security reasons and that makes a lot of sense. because they are programmed for active recreational uses, and so it's important to keep them secured during certain hours. so i would expect this is the same thing that applies to gene friend. i'm going to move for the planning commission to raise
3:56 am
the allowable cumulative shadow limit on gene friend recreation center by the appropriate amount. i'll take direction from staff as to with a we should pell out spell out on that. >> i think it's .02788%. >> correct, it's in the draft >> [kph*-eurgs/] commissioner richards. >> are there any rec centers in the city now and prior that have been opened at 7:00 a.m. to the best of your knowledge? >> i think a lot of our
3:57 am
aquatic centers are open early. and a basketball -- we try to program our facilities when we think we'll get the most amount of use. your points are well-taken and part of it depends on the programmatic elements of the center are? we would very much sort of support and encourage more programs inside the building. the key thing about gene friend is this is fundamentally a building structure. there is outdoor space and the outdoor space is important, but it's fundamentally the expansion that we're talking about is increasing indoor space, indoor programmatic space. >> thank you. >> commissioner harrison. >> this is the appropriate time, i would like to make a motion? >> you can. >> you want to call the request question separately? >> yes. >> i would like to ask a
3:58 am
question about the 12 housing units that will be made available for rent. and do we have any idea of what the average rent costs would be for that? and how those units will be accessed? >> >> bmr units provided will follow our establish the program guided by the mayor's office on housing. for rental units they are required 55% at ami, which is right now around $70,000, i think, somewhere in that range. 55% of that. less than that? so less than that. >> commissioner, just so you know, there is a whole manual and policy that is established by the mayor's office of housing that the planning commission reviews every year. the units are required to be scattered through the building. so they can't be on one floor on the lower-levels or whatever. >> so we'll be following protocols on that? okay. thank you,. >> commissioner mcdonnell. >> i know we're getting to call the question, so i will be
3:59 am
brief. it seems to me as we're considering whether or not to raise the ceiling that the basis for it can and should be certainly stating the obvious, can and should be on the impact of the open space. it feels like a slippery slope when we begin to add to the consideration how good the company is. and i applaud realtek for their amazing commitment that has at least been described as others have done as well. so it's just a comment that makes me uncomfortable because that could be a slippery slope -- as the company gets better in the ways that we deem "good." that potentially -- forgiven, casts a shadow on the question of does the shadow have impact on the space? i think the data illustrates it has minimal impact on the space and that is really the point of question in my mind. >> thank you for that clarity.
4:00 am
commissioner low. >> i also want to make sure this doesn't set a precedence for future projects coming before us. you know, we don't want another developer to come in to us and say, i made a $10,000 donation to parks alliance, and let me cast more shadow on a zero-tolerance park. >> i believe there is a motion and second from the planning commission and a motion and second from the recreation and park commission. >> do we have a second? >> yes, second. >> shall we call the question. >> please. >> commissioners, planning commission on that motion, to raise the cumulative shadow limit for gene friend recreation center, commissioner antioni. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner richards >> aye. >> commissioner wu. >> no. >> that passes 5-1 with commission wu voting
4:01 am
q. recreation and park commission, that motion passes. so we're now on item 1b recreation and park commission action only the discussion of possible action by the recreation and park commission to adopt a resolution to recommend to the planning commission that the new shadow cast on gene friend rec center by the proposed project at 363 6th street will not be adverse to the use of the park as required by planning code section 295, the sunlight ordinance. commissioners, do we have a motion or questions? >> so move >> second. >> okay. commission mcdonnell. >> aye. >> commissioner bonilla. >> aye. >> commissioner harrison. >> aye. >> commissioner low. >> aye. >> commissioner buell. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that item passes. commission buell, would you like to adjourn now? >> i'd love to adjourn.
4:02 am
is there a motion to adjourn the recreation and park commission? >> so moved. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> so moved >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. why don we -- why don't we give them a minute. just for the benefit of the public, the recreation and park commission has adjourned, and will be leaving the chambers. the planning commission will remain in session to discuss the rest of the entitlements of the project.
4:03 am
commissioners may we proceed? >> yes. >> okay, commissioners. then you have remaining items 1c and 1 d for adoption of findings in the large project authorization. you may call those questions separately or together. commissioner antonini. >> i am in favor, but i just wanted to ask on the shadow issue, the shadows are effective one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. so it seems like and i'm not sure, this time of the year, the sun has been getting up a little later each day. and i'm wondering even though
4:04 am
we're considering, there must obviously be sun during times of the day that are under consideration? it looks like many times of the year, the sun is barely risen by the time we're considering. i just thought i would make that point. obviously, there must be some sunlight there to analyze the shadow. but it's probably pretty minimal. and i am in favor based upon what has been presented before us to go ahead and support the regarding the use of the shadow allotment by this particular project. and i would make a motion to support that, to allow that to happen. >> commissioner antonini, the commissions have jointly acted on cumulative shadow. >> this is for adoption of findings. >> adoption of findings as the
4:05 am
larger project authorization. >> we're doing them together. i didn't know we had to do another -- i thought we did one to raise the limit and hit a second one to allot that limit to this particular project? >> correct. if the shadow is adverse to the use of the park is the finding that the planning commission can make now. >> right. >> that is actually what i am making the motion on. that one segment on it. >> understood. >> if we want to do it separately, because they are two separate questions. >> they are. >> is there a second to that? >> second. >> thank you. >> commission er richards >> i will save my comments for the lpa. >> commissioner hillis? we're still on shadow? >> we're doing the findings first. >> commissioners on the motion, commissioner antijoini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commission johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner rickets?
4:06 am
>> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> no. >> commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes 5-1, with commission wu voting no. >> i think the project is appropriate here. i appreciate the outreach, the community benefits that the developer has given from the arts and non-profits. it provides city council housing on-site bmr, all good stuff. and i'm troubled by the allotment of the 5' and i would love to hear the process -- it looks apparent to me it one time recommended keeping the floor off to keep the project within the intent of the code. can you talk to me about the journey about the recommendation? >> as part of the eastern neighborhoods plan we introduced or the commission
4:07 am
and the board introduced the kind of 5' bumps within the code. for example, previously within this area, we only had like an 80' height limit and eastern neighborhoods included an 85' limit that would accommodate ground floor uses particularly non-residential ground floor uses. under the code ground floor uses have to have a 14' floor-to-ceiling floor to floor height and the developer meets the intents of the code with providing floor-to-ceiling height for the commercial space at the ground floor-level. what it lent itself to for the remainder of the project is that by accommodating -- by providing for had a smaller floor plate, basically a smaller floor-to-ceiling site they were able to accommodate an additional floor of residential use on the other half of the building. so
4:08 am
typically in an 85' height limit, you would have a 14' ground floor; right? if it was a non-residential ground floor. and then 8 floors -- sorry, excuse me, 7 floors above of residential use. in this case, we have nine floors total within an 85' inez tenenbaum limit. height limit. >> correct. we didn't find it adverse. question for project sponsor. >> thank you. >> we had 1532 harrison last week and why we came out actively supporting was a couple of reasons. one was that they went down 5' and all of their floors were 10' and addition they had a superior design where you could see through the building in two different places. i understand -- not to make any judgment on architecture,
4:09 am
we have a completely different project, with pinched floors and a design that is good, but not superior. question i have is you have thought about going down 5' like 1532 harrison and creating the 10' floor-to-ceiling heights for each residential unit >> yes, we actually have. the reason for not doing that in this particular case is the project is located within a flood zone. so we have work very closely with dpw and public works and our civil engineer. building actually has to be raised 2 feet on the frontage at the corner of clara and 6th street and how the building relates it to that issue. we felt it presented a lot of issues. >> thank you. my other question for staff. the portion that is residential is not -- was never -- is not zoned commercial. it wasn't like the developer choose i want to put two units where we would have had a
4:10 am
commercial space allowed. >> correct. >> okay. >> in case, the zoning district or in this particular site doesn't have any required ground floor commercial uses. so it's optional on their part whether or not they provide a commercial space or not. >> in our opinion a commercial space, from clara street and the other place where we have the two units on the bottom. what would you think about that? >> i would say given probably the character of 6th street we would probably recommend focusing the commercial towards 6th street. >> 6th correct is commercial? >> correct. >> thank you. >> they basically have their retail street on the corner of clara and 6th street. so they have frontage on clara and walk up on claraa basically. >> commissioner hillis. >> just a couple of questions along those lines of it's interest, we had 1532 harrison,
4:11 am
which kind of did similar things and we heard similar feedback about kind of getting an additional -- getting an additional floor within the height limit, which i think on its face is good. right? we're adding more housing. is the housing well-designed? is it appropriate? so can you just clarify, the floor to height -- that height -- what is that? >> the floor-to-ceiling height as proposed is 8'6". >> that is of livable area. >> correct. from the level of the carpet is up to where the ceiling would hit. >> and what is the code minimum for that? >> it's 7' per dbi, what dbi would allow. >> okay. and what is the range we typically see in projects? >> typically, we'll accommodate like a floor-to-ceiling height of 10', knowing there is a floor slab
4:12 am
of typically a foot, so 9' floor-to-ceiling on average. >> 6 inches lower than average, but still. >> right. >> allowing in the code. i guess getting to this 5' plum issue in market/octavia. >> a big misnomer is the 5' bump. any development would be allowed to build up to 85' no matter what. so there is no bonus beyond the 85' level. in 2006 when they rezoned the site, they basically accommodated for the 5' level basically as an increase in our zoning districts n our height districts, which were to help accommodate for more gracious ground floor spacing if you were chosen to do for example,
4:13 am
pdr or retail space on the ground floor level. >> is the language the same in those other planned areas than in eastern neighborhoods? >> as far as i know, i'm fairly certainly market octavia is. >> in the nc corridors that sort of height as a quid pro quo, if you increase say the commercial area by 2' and it's a 55' limit, you get 52' for the building. one other thing i wanted to add, historically this area was rsd to allow conditional use. this 85' has been in place for a long time there. >> how tall does the building have to be to take advantage of being able to do an extra floor? 65' floor building take advantage -- is there enough
4:14 am
room with same floor to ceiling height? could you do the same thing? >> in theory, they could. i know that in talking with the development team, they are also using a different construction model that is allowing them to keep -- correct? that is allowing them to keep. >> their slab. >> their slab smaller than what is typical. and probably given the height of the overall, it's different, you know? because depending on the height, it's a different range of construction that is basically allowed on these projects. >> okay. i'm supportive. i think it's a creative way, just as we saw on harrison street. you may prefer or not the harrison street project, but there is some issues of going down. also, i think we have the issue of having shorter floor-to-ceiling heights here. but i think it's an interesting way to get more housing and actually stay within the height highlights. so i'm supportive.
4:15 am
i think maybe in the future we should perhaps take a look at how the market octavia plan works and how this does and clarify that language in the intent. i think ultimately it's good to get extra livable floors of housing and all that comes with it, fees and affordable housing. so i'm supportive. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have a couple of comments and a question. first of all i would urge project sponsor, if this should be approved to continue to work as the project moves forward to outreach to all parts of the community as far as how it's being built and who is going to build it and everything? it's not of course a condition, but it's certainly something that i would like to see the project sponsor to do. as per earlier conversation, in terms of the height, it's very clear that they have the 18'
4:16 am
retail. which i have had some letters that have questioned that, but they satisfy all points as far as the height and it's allowed. and they have more than enough on the ground floor retail. the other question that was raised is a little confusing. it was that the ground entries to the ground floor units have to be 3-5' above grade. i'm hearing two different things. first of all, i think project sponsor said they had to raise the whole thing 2' to start with at clara and 6th and then i understand there is a 2' raise to the beginning of the porch, that will address the units and also i think that is an 8' porch and maybe mr. sucre could talk about that because that more that satisfies with it with a broad porch. >> correct.
4:17 am
in looking at this with the urban design team, basically the ground floor residential design guidelines provide guidelines for what is typical. and what we would often ask an architect to consider, when developing walkup units basically at the street. it's not a strict -- it's not a strict formula in terms of options, like in terms of how you basically accommodate the effect we're looking for? this it case, since the project sponsor is only raising a couple of feet off the sidewalk grade, having a deeper courtyard was supported by our design team and our design professionals. because it still allows for enough activity basically at street and allows for privacy and usage of the private terraces that are basically fronting directly on to the street. so basically the higher you go, the shallower you can make that open space, the lower to the ground, the deep you are you want go to basically make sure that you
4:18 am
accommodate for livability and privacy as well. >> thank you very much. i certainly support that. because i think of situations involving the two figure into each other and think it's a good compromise. >> commissioner hillis -- i'm sorry, commissioner wu. >> okay. so i just want to ask a couple of questions. i'm looking at the flan flan plan of the ground-floor. >> all of the frontage basically all of the space that fronts on to 6th street, the lobby, the community room and retail all have the 18' floor it ceiling height. >> okay. and on the drawing it says community room says "possible
4:19 am
pg&e transformer room." is it in the condition of approval that it has to be a community room? >> correct, it does. so if they to accommodate a transformer room, obviously the community room would be likely reduced in size and ends up being a pg&e requirement, but they have to have the room on a public street, if they can't have the transformers poles on sidewalk. >> so it would likely be a corner of the room? >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis. >> i would move to approve item 1d, large project authorization. >> second. commissioners a motion has been seconded to approve the large project authorization on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commission johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> no >> commissioner wu. >> no. commission president fong. >> aye. >> passes 4-2 with
4:20 am
commissioners richards and wu voting against. commissioners, that was the last item on this agenda, and i do apologize. i did not foresee us ending this so quickly. our next hearing cannot start before 3:00 p.m., so we'll have an extended break. >> okay, we'll take a little longer lunch break and reconvene here a little before 3:00.
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
left
right